Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13116540 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/116,540 05/26/2011 Song Zhang P09654US01 5684
22885 7590 03/29/2017
MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C.
801 GRAND AVENUE
SUITE 3200
DES MOINES, IA 50309-2721
EXAMINER
REN, ZHUBING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patatty@ipmvs.com
michelle. woods @ ipmvs. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SONG ZHANG and NIKOLAUS KARPINSKY
Appeal 2016-0055971
Application 13/116,540
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 6-12 and 19-23, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Iowa State University
Research Foundation, Inc. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-005597
Application 13/116,540
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention “relates to 3-D data[,] specifically, [it] relates to
compression of 3-D shape data.” (May 26, 2011 Specification (“Spec.”)
p. 1.) Claim 6 is illustrative, and is reproduced below (with minor
reformatting):
6. A method for providing a representation of a 3-D image,
comprising:
storing on a computer readable storage medium a 24-bit
color image in a 2-D image file format, the 24-bit color image
having a red channel, a green channel, and a blue channel;
wherein a first of the channels of the 24-bit color image
comprises a representation of a sine fringe image associated with
the 3-D image; and
wherein a second of the channels of the 24-bit color image
comprises a representation of a cosine fringe image associated
with the 3-D image;
wherein the 24-bit color image in the 2-D image file
format contains sufficient information to recover the 3-D image.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
Migdal et al.
(“Migdal”)
Huntley et al
(“Huntley”)
Huang et al.
(“Huang”)
US 6,208,347 B1
US 2007/0115484 Al May 24, 2007
US 6,208,416 B1 Mar. 27, 2001
Mar. 27, 2001
Albertson et al. US 2008/0170748 Al July 17, 2008(“Albertson”)
Srinivasan US 8,184,694 B2 May 22, 2012
2
Appeal 2016-005597
Application 13/116,540
Claims 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Huang in view of Migdal. (See February 20, 2015
Final Action (“Final Act.”) 3-5.)
Claims 7, 19-21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Huang, in view of Migdal, and further in view of
Huntley. (See Final Act. 5-8.)
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, in view of Migdal, and further in view of
Srinivasan. (See Final Act. 8-9.)
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, in view of Migdal and Huntley, and further in
view of Albertson. (See Final Act. 9.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions.
Claims 6, 8—12, 19—21, and 23
With respect to claim 6, the Examiner finds the combination of Huang
and Migdal teaches or suggests “wherein the 24-bit color image in the 2-D
image file format contains sufficient information to recover the 3-D image.”
(Final Act. 3^4.) Specifically, the Examiner finds that Huang teaches or
suggests this limitation but “does not explicitly disclose the color image is a
24-bit color image.” (Id.) The Examiner, however, finds that Migdal
“teaches a 24-bit color image having a red channel, a green channel, and a
3
Appeal 2016-005597
Application 13/116,540
blue channel.” {Id. at 4.) Appellants contend that the limitation at issue is
not met because:
[t]here is no illustration in F[igure] 1 of converting a 2D color
photo to a 3D color image [and that] the texture mapping of
Huang simply does not contain sufficient information to recover
the 3-D image [because t]he 3-D image of Huang is constructed
using the patterns acquired with the B/W camera ....
(App. Br. 9-10, emphasis added.) Figure 1 of Huang is reproduced below.
Figure 1 “depicts one embodiment of the 2004 structured light system 100
(system 100), for near real-time 3-D shape measurement.” (Huang 111.)
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. We agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Figure 1
of Huang and corresponding paragraphs illustrate that 2D color
camera 120 takes 2D color images and the high speed camera
130 takes phase information for 3D information of the
object.... 3D shape measurement and 3D color image are
4
Appeal 2016-005597
Application 13/116,540
obtained based on the 2D color image and phase information at
every pixel.
(Ans. 9; Final Act. 3^4.) In other words, Huang teaches or suggests
recovering 3D color images from 2D color images not a “B/W camera” as
Appellants contend. Appellants do not respond to the Examiner’s detailed
findings but instead state that “it is apparent that the Examiner has taken the
same rejection as previously presented and has not provided any additional
support for the rejection, which was shown and described to be deficient
within the Appeal Brief.” (Reply 3.)
Appellants next contend that the 2D images in Huang “do[] not teach
a single color image[,] which contains sufficient information to recover the
3-D image from a 2-D image format.” (App. Br. 10; Reply 3^4.) Appellants
do not provide a construction for “sufficient information” but instead argue
that the 2D image format in Huang do not contain “sufficient information”
as claimed. (App. Br. 10-11.) We understand the Examiner’s rejection to
be based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “sufficient
information”:
one of ordinary skill the art would have no difficulty in
recognizing that texture mapping generated from 2D color image
in F[igure] 1 for rending the object surface in 3D shape
measurement is the sufficient information in the 2D image data
for recovering 3-D image as claimed in the broadest sense.
(Ans. 9-10.) While Appellants conclude the “texture mapping of Huang
simply does not contain sufficient information . . .” (App. Br. 9), Appellants
present no evidence to support their attorney argument nor do Appellants
explain why the Examiner’s construction is either overly broad or
unreasonable. Appellants have, therefore, not persuaded us of Examiner
error.
5
Appeal 2016-005597
Application 13/116,540
Appellants also contend “Migdal does not teach the 24-bit color image
in the 2-D image file format contains sufficient information to recover the
3-D image.” (App. 12-13.) However, “[o]ne cannot show non-obviousness
by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based
on combinations of references.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981). As discussed above, the Examiner is only relying on Migdal for “<2
24-bit color image having a red channel, a green channel, and a blue
channel” and it is the combination of Huang and Migdal that teaches or
suggests this limitation. (Final Act. 4.)
Claim 9 further recites “wherein the 2-D image file format is a lossy
format.” The Examiner finds Migdal teaches or suggests the “2-D image file
format is a lossy format. [See FIG. 1; column 6 lines 31-65; e.g. image
compression; e.g. loss some of the original data].” (Final Act. 4, emphasis
omitted.) Appellants contend claim 9 is not met by Migdal because “it is an
unexpected and surprising result to be able to represent 3-D images in a 2-D
RGB file in a lossy format as it allows highly significant reductions in the
size of stored data (see e.g. Specification, p. 22).” (App. Br. 12.) We note
the claim only requires the “2-d image file format is a lossy format” and we
agree with the Examiner that “Migdal describe[s] a well-known image data
compression technique that can reduce the redundant information in the 2D
image data to reduce the overall size of the image to be stored or
transported” (i.e., a lossy format). (Ans. 10; Migdal 6:47—64 (“Compression
techniques are known as either ‘lossless,’ meaning that they lose no data in
the encoding process or Tossy,’ meaning that they discard or lose some of
the original bitmap data to achieve a high compression factor. One widely
used Tossy’ compression standards for still 2D images is the JPEG (Joint
6
Appeal 2016-005597
Application 13/116,540
Photographic Experts Group) standard. . . Therefore, Appellants have
not persuaded us of Examiner error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 6 and 9 and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 6 and 9. Appellants do not make any separate, substantive
patentability arguments regarding claims 8, 10-12, 19-21, and 23 but
instead rely on the arguments with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 13-21.)
Therefore, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 8, 10-
12, 19-21, and 23.
Claim 7
Claim 7 further recites “wherein a third of the channels of the 24-bit
color image comprises a representation of a stair image for use in phase
unwrapping.” The Examiner finds that:
Huang disclose a third of the channels of the color image
comprises a representation of an image for use in phase
unwrapping [See FIG. 1-2 and FIG. 5-6; paragraph 0014-0016
and 0049; e.g. phase unwrapping algorithm; paragraph 0049; e.g.
the phase calculated as such results in a saw-tooth like shape
requiring traditional phase-unwrapping], but Huang does not
explicitly disclose a representation of a stair image for use in
phase unwrapping.
However, Huntley et al. (US 6208416 81) teaches a
representation of a stair image for use in phase unwrapping [See
FIG. 1-2 and 8; abstract; e.g. phase-stepped images].
(Final Act. 5-6, emphasis omitted.) Appellants contend that “[t]here is no
disclosure in the cited portion of the phase-shifted fringe images and the
wrapped phase map are all different color channels of the same image and if
they were the same image, the image would not be an RGB image.” (App.
Br. 18-19.) We agree with the Examiner that “the features upon which
7
Appeal 2016-005597
Application 13/116,540
[A]ppellant[s] rel[y] (i.e., the phase-shift fringe images and wrapped phase
map are all different color channels of the same image) are not recited in the
rejected claim(s).” (Ans. 11.) Moreover, Appellants do not respond nor
explain why the claim must be interpreted to include these features and have
not persuaded us of Examiner error. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 7.
Claim 22
Claim 22 further recites “wherein the video stream is associated with
video conferencing or video calling.” The Examiner finds:
Regarding claim 22, Huang, Migdal, and Huntley disclose
all the limitations in claim 19, but Huang does not disclose the
video stream is associated with video conferencing or video
calling.
However, Albertson . . . teaches the video stream is
associated with video conferencing or video calling [See FIG. 10,
e.g. 1010 and 1014; paragraph 0122; e.g. receives web
conference streams of video].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to modify the 3D shape
measuring system disclosed by Huang to add the color image
processing technique taught by Migdal, Huntley, and Albertson
as above, in order to provide a simple technique to create quality
images [See Migdal; column 1 lines 27-65], a method which can
rapidly and unambiguously measure the profiles of
discontinuous objects [See Huntley; column 1 lines 39-56], and
a processing system that may capture image streams of a user
independent of web conference streams and generate predicted
behavior record from the captured image streams [See Albertson;
paragraph 122],
(Final Act. 9, emphasis omitted.) Appellants, however, contend “the
Examiner’s mere conclusion ‘of providing functionality’—without an
articulated reasoning—falls far short of the burden of factually supporting a
prima facie conclusion of obviousness as required under MPEP § 2142.”
8
Appeal 2016-005597
Application 13/116,540
(App. Br. 22.) The Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner has
erred. First, Appellants do not provide a citation on where the phrase “of
providing functionality” is recited in the Final Action. Second, we find the
Examiner’s rejection articulates a reasoning with a rational underpinning for
why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
combine Huang, Migdal, Huntley, and Albertson. (Final Act. 5—6; Ans.
11-12.) See KSR Inti Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 418 (2007).
In contrast, rather than addressing the Examiner’s rationale for combining
the references (i.e., “to provide a simple technique to create quality
images . . .”), Appellants provide mere attorney argument and a conclusory
statement that is unsupported by persuasive evidence. (See App. Br. 21—22.)
As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 and
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 22.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6-12 and 19-
23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9